Fair-Weather Allies? Terrorism and the Allocation of US Foreign Aid

Boutton, Andrew; Carter, David B.

doi:10.1177/0022002713492649

Cited by 63 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 48 publications

(52 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding is consistent with our theoretical underpinnings from Boutton and Carter (2013) because donors have been documented to allocate more aid towards fighting transnational terrorist activities in recipient countries because they are more likely to target their interests. Moreover, the propensity of donor interest at stake is likely to increase with initial levels of transnational terrorism, such that the effect of foreign aid is most significant in recipient countries with the highest levels of transnational terrorism.…”

Section: Further Discussion Of Results and Policy Implicationssupporting

confidence: 90%

“…We have consistently established that foreign aid (bilateral, multilateral and total) is effective at fighting terrorism exclusively in countries where existing levels of transnational terrorism are highest. This finding is consistent with our theoretical underpinnings from Boutton and Carter (2013) because donors have been documented to allocate more aid towards fighting transnational terrorist activities in recipient countries because they are more likely to target their interests.…”

Section: Conclusion and Further Directionssupporting

confidence: 90%

See 1 more Smart Citation

When is Foreign Aid Effective in Fighting Terrorism? Threshold Evidence

Asongu

Ssozi

2017

International Economic Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Building on previous literature, we assess when foreign aid is effective in fighting terrorism using quantile regressions on a panel of 78 developing countries for the period 1984-2008.Bilteral, multilateral and total aid indicators are used whereas terrorism includes: domestic, transnational, unclear and total terrorism dynamics. We consistently establish that foreign aid (bilateral, multilateral and total) is effective at fighting terrorism exclusively in countries where existing levels of transnational terrorism are highest. This finding is consistent with our theoretical underpinnings because donors have been documented to allocate more aid towards fighting transnational terrorist activities in recipient countries because they are more likely to target their interests. Moreover, the propensity of donor interest at stake is likely to increase with initial levels of transnational terrorism, such that the effect of foreign aid is most significant in recipient countries with the highest levels of transnational terrorism. Policy implications and future research directions are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Further Discussion Of Results and Policy Implicationssupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Conclusion and Further Directionssupporting

confidence: 90%

When is Foreign Aid Effective in Fighting Terrorism? Threshold Evidence

Asongu

Ssozi

2017

International Economic Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, these recipients can further play-up the terrorism threat in order to receive more aid. Button and Carter (2014) have shown that the nexus between foreign aid and transnational terrorism is contingent on whether terrorist activity in the recipient country threatens the United States directly or not. Hence, the United States is more likely to offer aid to countries in which terrorist activities target her interests.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

The persistence of global terrorism

Asongu

2019

Territory, Politics, Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates persistence of global terrorism in a panel of 163 countries for the period 2010 to 2015. The empirical evidence is based on Generalised Method of Moments.The following findings are established. First, persistence in terrorism is a decreasing function of income levels because it consistently increases from high income (through upper middle income) to lower middle income countries. Second, compared to Christian-oriented countries, terrorism is more persistent in Islam-oriented nations. Third, landlocked countries also reflect a higher level of persistence relative to their coastal counterparts. Fourth, Latin American countries show higher degrees of persistence when compared with Middle East and North African (MENA) countries. Fifth, the main determinants of the underlying persistence are political instability and weapons import. The results are discussed to provide answers to four main questions which directly pertain to the reported findings. These questions centre on why comparative persistence in terrorism is based on income levels, religious orientation, landlockedness and regions. JEL Classification: C52; D74; F42; K42; O38

show abstract

“…44. Boutton and Carter 2014. 14 International Organization This approach has important advantages. We use aid commitments to predict disbursements, so our variables can be interpreted as discretionary deviations by the executive branch from appropriated aid levels.…”

Section: Dependent Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Democracy and Multilateralism: The Case of Vote Buying in the UN General Assembly

Carter¹,

Stone²

2014

Int Org

Self Cite

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Democracies are more supportive of US positions on important votes in the UN General Assembly than of nondemocracies. Is this because democracies share common perspectives, or does this pattern reflect coercion? Since 1985, US law has stipulated that the US State Department identify important votes and that aid disbursements reflect voting decisions. To unravel these alternative explanations, we introduce a strategic statistical model that allows us to estimate voting preferences, vulnerability to influence, and credibility of linkage, which are theoretical quantities of interest that are not directly observable. The results reject the hypothesis of shared democratic values: poor democracies have voting preferences that are more oppositional to US positions than autocracies, and they are more willing than autocracies to take symbolic stands that may cost them foreign aid. Democracies support US positions, however, because US aid linkages are more credible when directed toward democratic countries. Splitting the sample into Cold War and post-Cold War segments, we find that the end of the Cold War changed the way US linkage strategies treated allies and leftand right-leaning governments, but the effects of democracy remained constant.The relationship between multilateralism and democracy has risen in prominence in the post-Cold War period as international organizations have become increasingly influential and their members have become increasingly democratic. Delegation to international authorities involves some sacrifice of national sovereignty, and observers frequently lament the resulting democratic deficits. Democratic procedures ameliorate these concerns, and almost all multilateral organizations have provisions for voting, but these formal rules are often overridden by informal procedures that reflect the influence of powerful countries. 1 On the other hand, multilateralism is conceived as a means of restraining the exercise of hegemonic power 2 and is widely believed to strengthen democracy. Membership in international organizations has been credited with preventing new democracies from sliding back into authoritarianism, and with improving the quality of democratic governance. 3 A first step toward

show abstract

Fair-Weather Allies? Terrorism and the Allocation of US Foreign Aid

Cited by 63 publications

References 48 publications

When is Foreign Aid Effective in Fighting Terrorism? Threshold Evidence

When is Foreign Aid Effective in Fighting Terrorism? Threshold Evidence

The persistence of global terrorism

Democracy and Multilateralism: The Case of Vote Buying in the UN General Assembly

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About